Archive for the ‘Science’ category

What If You’re Wrong?

March 2nd, 2010

Staw Man

March 1st, 2010

Science isn’t about the person, its about the theory and the evidence.  Of course the people matter as they are the ones doing all the work, but at the end of the day our understanding of the universe and the natural world does not rely upon one person being right or wrong, but upon the evidence we find to support specific conclusions.  The theory itself might be changed, by the original author or by many in the scientific community, to more closely agree with the data.  This is a basic tenant of science.  We judge the resulting product based on the evidence, not whether it conveniently falls into a religious or political ideology.

Image if Einstein decided to retract general relativity in the late 1920s, with no reason or evidence justifying this action.  Imagine he simply decided that he no longer supported the idea.  Surely that would have caused a great stir in the scientific world and particularly in the world of theoretical physics.  However, the scientific community, in the end, would not have abandoned general relativity without proof it was wrong.  They would have stood by the theory, since in the 1920s there was already a lot of proof that it was very right.  We don’t need Einstein to agree that the theory is sound; we need evidence to agree that the idea is sound.

Similarly with evolution, Darwin doesn’t really matter other than the fact he first proposed it.  What matters is not what aspects of his original theory are right or wrong, though the vast majority of Darwin’s original theory has survived the test of time and more than one revolution in biology.  What Darwin said or did doesn’t change reality.  The theory, backed with evidence, changes our perceptions.  And that evidence is overwhelming in the cases of General Relativity and Evolution.  An attack on Darwin, or Einstein, is just an attack on a person, not on all the evidence supporting their theories.

A belief in evolution is not a faith.  Its based on the fact that evolution has been proven true by multiple, separate lines of evidence.  Evolution, for all intents and purposes, is a scientific fact.  It doesn’t matter what attacks might be made on the great man.  Those attacks, or anything Darwin said or did, does not change the physical reality that all organisms have evolved to their current states via natural selection.

Book Review: How to Teach Physics to Your Dog

February 26th, 2010

I finished How to Teach Physics To Your Dog by Chad Orzel about a month ago, and have found myself thinking about it off and on during that time.  For the difficult subject of Quantum Physics, Orzel does a very good job conveying unintuitive concepts so that a non-physicist might understand them.  The book takes the format of Orzel teaching physics to his dog through many conversations that are often humorous and always lead to an in-depth discussion regarding Quantum Physics.  Having read a few other books on Physics and at least one other book on Quantum Physics, I was familiar with several of the concepts.  However, Orzel did a very good job diving into a level of detail that I had no previously seen, despite the accessibility of his writing style.

Quantum Physics flies in the face of common sense.  Our brains evolved with macro cause and effect, with objects that are solid and act in a fashion that we expect.  Particles at the quantum scale do not act solid, do not act in a fashion that our brain would expect, yet this science and been experimentally proven to a level that is only rivaled by the evidence for evolution or relativity.

One of my favorite sections of the book addresses quackery and popular misconceptions around quantum physics.  Orzel does a good job comparing and contrasting the science with the misconceptions perpetrated by these quacks, and by the media.

I would highly recommend this book for anyone looking to learn more about Quantum Physics.

Book Review: In Search of Memory

February 25th, 2010

Every once in a while I read a book that is truly amazing, a book that leaves keeps me thinking about it during those times of the day when my thoughts wander.  Godel, Escher and Bach is such a book, as is The Singularity is Near.  Last night I finished another such book, In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of the Mind by Eric R. Kandel.  As you might expect from the title, the book is primarily concerned with the sciences related to the brain and in particular the science of memory.  However, Dr. Kandel’s book not only is a wonderfully vivid discussion of neural science over the past century and a half, but a touching autobiography.

Kandel, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, was born a Jew, in Vienna, in 1929.  At age 10 the Nazis “invaded” Austria, and within the year he found himself in America.  Its is within the context of this start to life that he tells of his search for the biological basis of Freud’s theories, which ultimately leads him to the research of memory, many accolades, and an important place in medical and scientific history.

The science in the book is fascinating.  Kandel himself is a pioneer in neural science, but he spends many pages in each chapter discussing the brilliant women and men with which he has worked, many of whom have also won The Nobel Prize.  Kandel is a very talented writer, and exceptionally good at conveying complex scientific concepts to the lay reader.  The science of the mind is surely the most difficult of all of the medical sciences, and Kandel goes into detail while leaving the book accessible to the non-scientist.

When Kandel speaks of his past, his relationship to Europe and Vienna, his friends, and his family, he is particularly candid and touching.  The emotional depth of the book was surprising for me.  The man is clearly passionate about many things, and those passions ring through true and clear in the book.

At the end of reading the book I found my understanding of brain biology much greater, but I also found that I had learned a new aspect of the history World War II.  I also found that this man, who is obviously a talented scientist, is also Pulitzer-caliber author.  His writing is of such that I would wonder if this book might have won The Pulitzer if not for its scientific depth.

I cannot recommend this book enough.  It is one I am sure I will find myself revisiting in years to come.

A Brief History of Pretty Much Everything

February 12th, 2010

The Best Idea Anyone Ever Had

November 25th, 2009

Today is the 150th Anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.  This is almost certainly the most important book ever written, and Charles Darwin’s idea has been aptly described as “The Best Idea Anyone Ever Had.”

Darwin waited nearly 20 years to publish his book.  The prominent theory on why he waited is summed as this: he was afraid of the negative backlash.  Darwin knew how deep his idea would cut across old mysticism, and also knew that it would not just be a flesh wound.  The idea of evolution wasn’t a flimsy knife, it was a mighty sword.  I believe Darwin understood that the very fact that the theory was so strong would be the thing that would make it so dangerous (perhaps for him).

During the time leading up to the writing of the book Darwin had researched the subject in great depth, and from then to the time of publishing had collected an even larger body of evidence.  When he did publish he did so with a well thought out theory that seemed to answer all the arguments against it.  He published a wealth (literally, for mankind) of knowledge that he had ingeniously analyzed and scrutinized.

How prescient this man was about its theory, and its reception!  Today, 150 years later, evolution is considered a scientific fact, so strong is the evidence in the view of the experts.  Predictions laid down based on evolution via natural selection have come true over and over.  We find new fossils yearly, right where they should be in the strata, right where they should be evolutionarily between already-known species.  We have found the “missing links” between the lower primates and man.  We now have molecular and DNA evidence supporting evolution.  In fact, there isn’t a single scientific fact known to modern biologists that disagrees with evolution.  Yet the old mysticism clings to bronze-age creation myths instead of recognizing the most well proven scientific theory ever.  Darwin was right about the science, but he was also right about his theory’s social implications, and that some would reject his theory without ever giving it a chance.

As a free thinking human I think this day should be celebrated as a high holiday.  Darwin’s achievement surely ranks with the discover of fire, the first written word, and Newton’s, Einstein’s and Heisenberg’s respective works in physics.  Sitting on top of the theory of evolution is all of modern biology.  Countless lives have been saved because of scientists developing medicine based on this knowledge.  It is a triumph of the human intelligence, one note in a song that tells us that we can shape our species’s destiny with critical thinking and scientific reasoning.

Growing Up in the Universe

October 8th, 2009

I just stumbled across these awesome lectures by Richard Dawkins. They were done in 1991 as part of the Royal Institute series of Christmas Lectures.

Book Review: Uncertainty: Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, and the Struggle for the Soul of Science

July 22nd, 2009

I just finished reading Uncertainty: Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, and the Struggle for the Soul of Science.  The book covers the development of atomic theory, quantum theory, and most importantly, quantum mechanics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  The central figures are the de facto fathers of modern physics.  The author, David Lindley, doesn’t delve too deeply into the math or even hard science of the topic but instead focuses on the personalities of Born, Bohr, The Curries, Einstein, Heisenberg and others prominently represented in the book.

The author could have taken a deeper dive into the actual physics.  Throughout much of the book Einstein and Company battle Heisenberg and Company for “the soul of science” aka Einstein’s more classical views vs. Heisenberg’s quantum mechanics.  I would have appreciated a more thorough discussion of which concepts have really taken hold in quantum mechanics.  For example, Lindley discussed how the Schrödinger’s cat analogy (Schrödinger being from the Einstein camp) has been abandoned by modern physicists as misrepresenting what is know about quantum mechanics.  What are the facts, as understood by the leading physicists today?  I would have happily read another 10 or 20 pages covering what has made it into the modern view, and what hasn’t.  That being said, this book did a marvelous job framing the arguments so that they can be understood by the lay person.  The characters are brought to life and humanized.  I felt the author treated everyone more than fairly.  I would recommend it to anyone wanting a better idea of quantum mechanics without having to learn too much science.

Monty Hall, Being Wrong, Right, and Idiot America

June 22nd, 2009

There is a famous problem in computer science (hang in there with me) called the Monty Hall Problem:

Suppose you’re on a game show, and you’re given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, “Do you want to pick door No. 2?” Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

You should switch your choice.  Disagree?  You are wrong!   Why?  Well let Wikipedia explain!

This is a really unintuitive one, but one that clever mathematicians solved a long, long time ago.  But a lot of people still disagree with experts in the fields. Why is this?  We all want to think we are smart, but are we all smart in all domains of thinking and knowledge?

I have been reading Jeff Atwoods series of articles on the subject for some time.  His blog is always an interesting read, but his recent article just dovetailed with a book I just finished reading, Idiot American: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free. Mr. Atwood points to an article by Marilyn vos Savant in which she points out the answer to the “Monty Hall” problem above.  Her correct answer is is blasted by many of her readers.  Its funny she is right despite the opinions of many average Americans, and even many “learned” Americans.

In “Idiot America”, we learn about the tendency in contemporary America to give any given argument equal standing, no matter how ridiculous.  For example, the politically charged issues of evolution and global climate change are both painted by some in American as being “controversial”, yet they aren’t, at all, in the circles of science.  There is no controversy about evolution.  It is considered a scientific fact by biologists, paleontologists, and others.  Global climate change has become one one of the most researched topics of the last 50 years.  It is clear to specialists in the field what is happening.  At a recent convention of climatologists, the debate was not about global climate change, but about how to convince the public it was real.

Television personalities pull some 3rd rate weatherman out of East Kansas to debate a world-renowned Climatologist and both sides are given equal billing on Fox News.  It doesn’t matter that “East Kansas” is probably more concerned with local politics than science, and she/he hasn’t been published in a peer-review journal.  Never mind that the word-renowned scientist has been published, and thereby has had their credibility, skills, etc, put up for review by the peers (and passed).

This is the way our popular media now works.  Never mind the liberal or conservative slant.  Of course many of these talking heads paint all of science as liberal, and thereby political and wrong.  When the truth slant gets out of whack, we are all screwed.  When we quit giving respect to those in our society who strive to have, and gain the most education and accomplishment, we are in a bad place.  When we start giving more credibility to Rush Limbaugh than various, proven scientists, then we are more about ego and personal opinion than truth.

Earth from 10^23 meters to 10^-16 meters

June 19th, 2009

I saw this today. Its a series of pics of Earth from 1023 meters (10 million light years) to 1016 meters (100 attometers). Pretty cool.